Iran now faces serious challenges to its traditional strategy of using proxy groups to achieve geopolitical goals. Today, Tehran faces a dilemma over how to maintain its influence in the region and avoid a direct military confrontation, as its allies such as Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iraqi militias increasingly lean toward escalating the conflict.
The Wall Street Journal writes about this.
Over the past few decades, Iran has been actively working to create a coalition of ideologically close armed groups spread across the Middle East. This strategy allowed Tehran to wage a hybrid war, acting through its proxies and avoiding direct confrontation with opponents including Israel, the United States, and other Western powers. Iran supports its proxies by providing them with cheap but effective weapons, such as missiles and drones, that can be used to attack key targets.
However, in recent months, this long-standing tactic has begun to unravel. As the Wall Street Journal notes, the assassination of one of Hamas’s key terrorist figures, Ismail Haniyeh, was a major turning point. This development shocked the Iranian elite as it created the risk of direct attacks on Iranian soil. Tehran, despite its efforts to modernize, remains vulnerable to attack due to its outdated military, most of which was acquired in the 1970s, before the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Iran, aware of the limitations of its air defense, has focused its efforts on developing attack drones and missiles that can hit targets in Israel. However, these systems, while possessing offensive potential, are completely useless for protecting its own airspace. This creates a serious dilemma for Iranian leaders: how to repel potential attacks from Israel and the United States that could follow if Tehran’s proxy groups begin an aggression.
In parallel, tension is rising among the power groups themselves. Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and Iraqi Shiite militias, emboldened by Iranian support, are increasingly eager to take action. Their growing frustration with Tehran’s indecisiveness could cause these groups to spiral out of control. If this happens, the consequences will be catastrophic, especially since they are targeting not only Israeli forces but also US troops stationed in the region.
In this context, Syria stands out. President Bashar al-Assad has made it clear to Iran that he is not interested in engaging in a full-scale war, especially amid an economic crisis and popular discontent caused by years of sanctions. Syria, which is in deep crisis, is not ready for a new war, especially since there are still around 1,000 US troops in the eastern part of the country. These forces play an important role in preventing the resurgence of ISIS, supporting Washington’s Kurdish allies and containing the influence of Iran and Russia.
In early 2024, amid rising tensions, the United States began increasing its resources in the region. Additional troops and equipment were sent to Syria, signaling that Washington is taking the potential escalation of the conflict seriously. The US presence in Syria serves many purposes, including protecting its interests and allies and limiting Iranian influence.
Iran is therefore in a difficult situation. On the one hand, it seeks to avoid direct conflict, which could be destructive for its territory and its regime. On the other hand, its proxies losing patience could lead to exactly the kind of war that Tehran is trying to avoid. In the coming months, Iran’s intentions and capabilities will become more clearly visible in order to prevent its allies from taking hasty measures. But if Iran fails to rein in its watchdogs, the consequences could be extremely serious both for the region and for Iran itself.
Previously, Cursor wrote why Iran did not attack Israel.
Analysts spoke of Iran’s fears that prevent it from attacking Israel in response to Haniyeh’s liquidation.
